Former Vice President Dick Cheney says there was “never any evidence” that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. “On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11, there was never any evidence to prove that,” Cheney said during an interview Monday night with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. “There was some reporting early on, for example, that Mohammed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official,” Cheney said. “But that was never borne out.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090602/pl_politico/23228 So if there was no WMD and no evidence of Iraq being involved in 9/11 . . . why did we go to war with Iraq?
Funny, I was actually watching old footage today when Cheney was on Meet The Press and kept insisting that there was a Iraq and 9/11 connection. If Greta had done her homework she would have had that footage on hand, but I'm guessing not.
That's like asking someone to take a shit, piss, puke and throw a gallon of oil and gas into their own well.
Because Iraq repeatedly thumbed their noses at UN resolutions, including shooting at US planes in areas over Iraq and not playing nice with weapons inspectors. Because Hussein was a dangerous leader that had, in the previous decade, invaded a neighbor and had gassed and otherwise killed his own countrymen. Also, of course, because it helps us get closer to Iran, which has been the biggest threat in the region since 1980. The WMD and AQ connections may have been what some people focused on, but all of those reasons were on the table at the time and haven't really gone away just because some of the reasons have. Ed O.
I just wish Bush/Cheney could have given the citizens of the United States any of the above for why we went into Iraq. Instead we had a bunch of unsubstantiated info stuffed down our throats. It is almost comedic that Cheney is so hell bent to clear the fact that 9/11 and Iraq had no connection. I think the two of them get a much worse wrap than they deserve, but this is not one of those times.
*shrug* I was able to give these reasons at the time, although to be honest I thought that both WMDs and an AQ connection existed with Iraq, as well. I'm sorry that other Americans weren't paying attention... I don't really feel like the misdirection, assuming it existed, impacts anything in my mind. I can see how the reasons I list are insufficient reasons to go to war, but I don't buy that there were NO reasons to do so. Ed O.
I still maintain that we invaded Iraq because we needed a base of operations in the middle east. Iraq was just the most logical choice because Saddam was a known bad guy.
Iraq was a silly, silly move and we will have years, maybe decades in front of us to clean up our image after that.
You mean, outside of Bahrain, where 5th Fleet has been headquartered since 1995? http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm You seem to fall into the 77% they're talking about: even though legislation has been passed with the budget each of the last 3 years, and we've said we'll be gone when the Iraqis can take over themselves and want us gone (currently in April 2011, iirc), people seem to think that they're this vast conspiracy to keep building big "bases of operation". I guess you could keep saying "we did it for the oil", too.
He invaded Iran and gassed Iranians, too. I don't remember the administration ever saying Iraq had a hand in 9/11, and they came out quite early (days after 9/11) in saying so. An AQ/Iraq connection is a different matter - Iraq could have had nothing to do with 9/11 yet supported AQ. I remember W going to the UN and telling them that 17 resolutions was enough and that the US would enforce them alone if necessary. (Another reason, stated). "The world is a safer place with Saddam removed" was the bottom line reason articulated. Saddam had to be disarmed. Last time I checked, he has been and completely. Iraq harbored terrorists and sponsored others. Of this there is no doubt. The US congress voted that regime change was official policy, and that was during the Clinton administration and he signed it. Establishing a robust democracy in the heart of the middle east would add stability to the region. I'd add that I read between the lines that there was enough funny business going on with the food for oil program, under the table deals between Saddam and our "allies" for lucrative oil contracts, the sanctions were downright harmful to the honorable people of Iraq (and children), and it was looking like some of our allies were going to push to lift the sanctions altogether. If the sanctions were to be lifted (and they were), not with Saddam or his sons in power. Oddly, the only talk of oil I ever heard was the deals Saddam had in place with Russia ($9B) and other countries, and from conspiracy theories of those who clearly wanted (and still do) the US to fail.
Ha ha ha ha ha like Fox news is ever going to do that. What is even more humorous, is that you expect her to actually do something like a legitimate reporter with an unbiased opinion to do. Is there some swampland on government island I can sell you while your on a roll?
I don't think any of us will ever really know what that war is about . . . so we will never really know if all these casualties and deaths were really worth it.
It's not your fault, the American peoples' fault, or even Bush's fault as far as I'm concerned. Every credible intelligence community across the globe essentially said Saddam had WMDs, we should believe it. Nothing wrong with that. I just wish that the added Iraq and 9/11 connection was pushed on the people, we should be able to believe our elected officials. There definitly were reasons to go to war, no doubt about that. I don't believe it was sufficient, but there were reasons.
That is one of the issues I had with this . . . I don't think the American people would have accepted this war the way they originally did if there was no 9/11. It was an opprotunity for the administration to get the American people on board with this war.
I agree. I was listening to Obama's speech and something he said applies to this. I couldn't agree more with this. Especially the highlighted part. I mean have we not killed more people in the name of peace than Saddam did in his tyranny?
